Patient-reported outcomes for older adults on CamAPS FX closed loop system.

AIMS: Use of the CamAPS FX hybrid closed loop (CL) system is associated with improved time in range and glycated haemoglobin A1c across the age span, but little is known about its effects on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: This open-label, randomized, multi-site study compared CamAPS FX to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a sample of older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Thirty-five older adults completed PROs surveys at the start of the study and after each period of 16 weeks using either CL or SAP. At the end of the study, 19 participated in interviews about their experiences with CL. RESULTS: Results examining the 16 weeks of CL use showed that the overall Diabetes Distress Scale score and two subscales (powerlessness and physician distress) improved significantly along with trust on the Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey. User experience interview responses were consistent in noting benefits of 'improved glycaemic control' and 'worrying less about diabetes'. CONCLUSION: In this sample of older adults with T1D who have previously shown glycaemic benefit, there are indicators of improved PROs and subjective user experience benefits.

People with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia have a delayed reaction to performing a glucose scan during hypoglycaemia: a prospective observational study.

AIMS: Considering that people with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) have a delayed perception of hypoglycaemia, the question arises whether they perform scans later in case of hypoglycaemia than people without IAH. We assessed whether time to performing a scan after reaching hypoglycaemia while using a flash glucose monitoring (flash GM) system is different in people with IAH compared with people without IAH. METHODS: Ninety-two people with type 1 diabetes [mean (± sd) age 42 ± 14 years, HbA1c 57 ± 9 mmol/mol] using a flash GM system for 3 months were included. Flash GM data were assessed for time until scan after reaching hypoglycaemia level 1 (< 3.9 mmol/l) and level 2 (< 3.0 mmol/l) and compared for type 1 diabetes with vs. without IAH via unpaired t-test/Mann-Whitney U test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found only for the delay between reaching hypoglycaemia and scan between people with and without IAH for Gold score [hypoglycaemia level 1: IAH 78 (51-105) min vs. without IAH 63 (42-89) min, P = 0.03; night-time hypoglycaemia level 2: IAH 140 (107-227) min vs. without IAH 96 (41-155) min, P = 0.004] and Pedersen-Bjergaard score [hypoglycaemia level 1: IAH 76 (52-97) min vs. without IAH 54 (38-71) min, P = 0.011; night-time hypoglycaemia level 1: IAH 132 (79-209) min vs. without IAH 89 (59-143) min, P = 0.011; night-time hypoglycaemia level 2: IAH 134 (66-212) min vs. without IAH 80 (37-131) min, P = 0.002). Data are shown as median (i.q.r.). CONCLUSIONS: Time until scan after reaching hypoglycaemia might be an objective assessment tool for IAH, but needs to be investigated comprehensively in future studies.

Home Use of an Artificial Beta Cell in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of prolonged use of an artificial beta cell (closed-loop insulin-delivery system) in the home setting have not been established. METHODS: In two multicenter, crossover, randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents. RESULTS: Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).

Improved glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction with a simple wearable 3-day insulin delivery device among people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the PAQ® (CeQur SA, Horw, Switzerland), a wearable 3-day insulin delivery device that provides set basal rates and bolus insulin on demand, in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHOD: Adults with Type 2 diabetes with HbA1c concentrations ≥53 and ≤97 mmol/mol (7.0 and 11.0%) while treated with ≥2 insulin injections/day were enrolled in two single-arm studies comprising three periods: a baseline (insulin injections), a transition and a PAQ treatment period (12 weeks). Endpoints included HbA1c , seven-point self-monitored blood glucose, total daily dose of insulin and body weight. Safety was assessed according to examination, hypoglycaemic episodes and adverse device effects. RESULTS: A total of 28 adults were enrolled (age 63 ± 7 years, 86% men, BMI 32.3 ± 4.3kg/m2 , Type 2 diabetes duration 17 ± 8 years, HbA1c 70 ± 12 mmol/mol (8.6 ± 1.1%), total daily insulin dose 58.7 ± 20.7 U), of whom 24 completed the studies. When transitioned to PAQ, 75% of participants continued on the first basal rate selected. After 12 weeks of PAQ wear, significant improvements from baseline were seen [HbA1c -16 ± 9 mmol/mol (95% CI -20, -12) or -1.5 ± 0.9% (95% CI -1.8, -1.1) P<0.0001], and at all seven self-monitored blood glucose readings time points (P ≤0.03). Total daily insulin dose increased by 12.1 ± 19.5 U (95% CI 3.9, 20.4; P=0.0058), the number of meal time boluses increased by 0.9 ± 1.5/day (95% CI 0.3, 1.5; P=0.0081) and body weight remained stable. Six participants had mild to moderate catheter site reactions and one mild skin irritation occurred. No participant experienced severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with Type 2 diabetes were safely transitioned from insulin injections to the PAQ and had significantly improved glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction with insulin therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02158078 & NCT02419859).

Bolusing frequency and amount impacts glucose control during hybrid closed-loop.

AIM: To compare bolus insulin delivery patterns during closed-loop home studies in adults with suboptimally [HbA1c 58-86 mmol/mol (7.5%-10%)] and well-controlled [58 mmol/mol (< 7.5%)] Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of daytime and night-time insulin delivery during home use of closed-loop over 4 weeks. Daytime and night-time controller effort, defined as amount of insulin delivered by closed-loop relative to usual basal insulin delivery, and daytime bolus effort, defined as total bolus insulin delivery relative to total daytime insulin delivery were compared between both cohorts. Correlation analysis was performed between individual bolus behaviour (bolus effort and frequency) and daytime controller efforts, and proportion of time spent within and below sensor glucose target range. RESULTS: Individuals with suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes had significantly lower bolus effort (P = 0.038) and daily bolus frequency (P < 0.001) compared with those with well-controlled diabetes. Controller effort during both daytime (P = 0.007) and night-time (P = 0.005) were significantly higher for those with suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes. Time when glucose was within the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during daytime correlated positively with bolus effort (r = 0.37, P = 0.016) and bolus frequency (r = 0.33, P = 0.037). Time when glucose was below the target range during daytime was comparable in both groups (P = 0.36), and did not correlate significantly with bolus effort (r = 0.28, P = 0.066) or bolus frequency (r = -0.21, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: More frequent bolusing and higher proportion of insulin delivered as bolus during hybrid closed-loop use correlated positively with time glucose was in target range. This emphasises the need for user input and educational support to benefit from this novel therapeutic modality.

Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions.

AIMS: To assess the accuracy and reliability of the two most widely used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. METHODS: We studied the Dexcom®G4 Platinum (DG4P; Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) and Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite system (ENL; Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) CGM systems, in 24 patients with type 1 diabetes. The CGM systems were tested during 6-day home use and a nested 6-h clinical research centre (CRC) visit. During the CRC visit, frequent venous blood glucose samples were used as reference while patients received a meal with an increased insulin bolus to induce an aggravated postprandial glucose nadir. At home, patients performed at least six reference capillary blood measurements per day. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed using all data points ≥15 min apart. RESULTS: The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) value [standard deviation (s.d.)] measured at the CRC was 13.6 (11.0)% for the DG4P and 16.6 (13.5)% for the ENL [p < 0.0002, confidence interval of difference (CI Δ) 1.7-4.3%, n = 530]. The overall MARD assessed at home was 12.2 (12.0)% for the DG4P and 19.9 (20.5)% for the ENL (p < 0.0001, CI Δ = 5.8-8.7%, n = 839). During the CRC visit, the MARD in the hypoglycaemic range [≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], was 17.6 (12.2)% for the DG4P and 24.6 (18.8)% for the ENL (p = 0.005, CI Δ 3.1-10.7%, n = 117). Both sensors showed higher MARD values during hypoglycaemia than during euglycaemia [3.9-10 mmol/l (70-180 mg/dl)]: for the DG4P 17.6 versus 13.0% and for the ENL 24.6 versus 14.2%. CONCLUSIONS: During circumstances of intended use, including both a CRC and home phase, the ENL was noticeably less accurate than the DG4P sensor. Both sensors showed lower accuracy in the hypoglycaemic range. The DG4P was less affected by this negative effect of hypoglycaemia on sensor accuracy than was the ENL.

Pharmacodynamics of the long-acting insulin analogues detemir and glargine following single-doses and under steady-state conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: The pharmacodynamic characteristics of the basal insulin analogues insulin detemir (IDet) and insulin glargine (IGlar) have been examined extensively via euglycaemic clamp studies. However, differences in clamp methodology and in the analysis of clamp data between trials have led to confusion over the duration of action of these two insulins. The aim of this study was to address these ambiguities in the literature by assessing the pharmacodynamic properties of IDet and IGlar over 30 h under single-dose and steady-state conditions using the definitions and procedures previously standardized by Heise and Pieber in 2007. METHODS: This was a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, glucose clamp trial involving 36 patients with type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: The mean duration of action of IDet was 25.9 h, compared with 19.8 h for IGlar after a single-dose (NS), and 23.3 h (IDet) versus 27.1 h (IGlar) at steady-state (p < 0.0001). IDet had a significantly higher area under the curve glucose infusion rate (AUCGIR ) than IGlar over 0-12 h after a single-dose (p = 0.0018). The steady-state AUCGIR for IDet was numerically higher than IGlar over 0-12 h (728 vs. 592 mg/kg, respectively; p = NS), but significantly lower than IGlar at 12-30 h (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: The duration of action of IDet is 23 h (range: 4.0-30.0), while that of IGlar is 27 h (range: 10.5-29.0) (95% CI: -8.1, 0.6). This suggests both insulins can be used for once-daily dosing, but individual needs must be considered.

Efficacy, usability and sequence of operations of a workflow-integrated algorithm for basal-bolus insulin therapy in hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients.

AIMS: To evaluate glycaemic control and usability of a workflow-integrated algorithm for basal-bolus insulin therapy in a proof-of-concept study to develop a decision support system in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this ward-controlled study, 74 type 2 diabetes patients (24 female, age 68 ± 11 years, HbA1c 8.7 ± 2.4% and body mass index 30 ± 7) were assigned to either algorithm-based treatment with a basal-bolus insulin therapy or to standard glycaemic management. Algorithm performance was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring and staff's adherence to algorithm-calculated insulin dose. RESULTS: Average blood glucose levels (mmol/l) in the algorithm group were significantly reduced from 11.3 ± 3.6 (baseline) to 8.2 ± 1.8 (last 24 h) over a period of 7.5 ± 4.6 days (p < 0.001). The algorithm group had a significantly higher percentage of glucose levels in the ranges from 5.6 to 7.8 mmol/l (target range) and 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/l compared with the standard group (33 vs. 23% and 73 vs. 53%, both p < 0.001). Physicians' adherence to the algorithm-calculated total daily insulin dose was 95% and nurses' adherence to inject the algorithm-calculated basal and bolus insulin doses was high (98 and 93%, respectively). In the algorithm group, significantly more glucose values <3.9 mmol/l were detected in the afternoon relative to other times (p < 0.05), a finding mainly related to pronounced morning glucose excursions and requirements for corrective bolus insulin at lunch. CONCLUSIONS: The workflow-integrated algorithm for basal-bolus therapy was effective in establishing glycaemic control and was well accepted by medical staff. Our findings support the implementation of the algorithm in an electronic decision support system.

A direct comparison of the pharmacodynamic properties of insulin detemir and neutral protamine lispro insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacodynamic properties of insulin detemir (detemir) and neutral protamine lispro (NPL) insulin using a euglycaemic glucose clamp. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover study, 30 patients with C-peptide negative type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to a single dose (0.4 U/kg) of detemir and NPL. Plasma glucose (PG) was normalized with a variable insulin infusion and then decreased stepwise, followed by a euglycaemic clamp at 5.5 mmol/l over 32 h. Duration of action was defined as time from dosing until PG exceeded 8.3 mmol/l for at least 30 min. RESULTS: Duration of action was similar for detemir [23.0 (range 2.25-32) h] and NPL [22.0 (9.5-32) h], p = 0.55. Using glucose infusion rate (GIR) parameters, detemir showed a flatter pharmacodynamic profile versus NPL: area under the curve, AUC(GIR) ((0-32)) = 1326 vs. 1841 mg/kg, p < 0.01 (detemir vs. NPL, respectively); AUC(GIR) ((0-12)) = 784 vs. 1392 mg/kg, p < 0.05; AUC(GIR) ((12-32)) = 455 vs. 274 mg/kg, p = 0.051; GIR(late) (12-32)/GIR(early) (0-12) ratio = 0.33 vs. 0.04, p < 0.001. Detemir also showed a lower and later peak of action than NPL [GIR(max) 2.0 vs. 3.2 mg/kg/min, p < 0.01; T(max) 9.1 (95% confidence interval: 3.0-14.7) vs. 7.0 h (1.8-15.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: Detemir and NPL had similar duration of action of approximately 24 h in patients with type 1 diabetes. Compared with NPL, detemir had a flatter profile with a more even distribution of metabolic effect over 24 h.

A Mathematical Formula to Determine the Minimum Continuous Glucose Monitoring Duration to Assess Time-in-ranges: Sensitivity Analysis Over the Parameters.

In diabetes management, the fraction of time spent with glucose concentration within the physiological range of [70-180] mg/dL, namely time in range (TIR) is often computed by clinicians to assess glycemic control using a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. However, a sufficiently long monitoring period is required to reliably estimate this index. A mathematical equation derived by our group provides the minimum trial duration granting a desired uncertainty around the estimated TIR. The equation involves two parameters, pr and α, related to the population under analysis, which should be set based on the clinician's experience. In this work, we evaluated the sensitivity of the formula to the parameters.Considering two independent datasets, we predicted the uncertainty of TIR estimate for a population, using the parameters of the formula estimated for a different population. We also stressed the robustness of the formula by testing wider ranges of parameters, thus assessing the impact of large errors in the parameters' estimates.Plausible errors on the α estimate impact very slightly on the prediction (relative discrepancy < 5%), thus we suggest using a fixed value for α independently on the population being analyzed. Instead, pr should be adjusted to the TIR expected in the population, considering that errors around 20% result in a relative discrepancy of ~10%.In conclusion, the proposed formula is sufficiently robust to parameters setting and can be used by investigators to determine a suitable duration of the study.

Assessment of different techniques for subcutaneous glucose monitoring in Type 1 diabetic patients during 'real-life' glucose excursions.

AIMS: To compare the accuracy of two marketed subcutaneous glucose monitoring devices (Guardian RT, GRT; GlucoDay S, GDS) and standard microdialysis (CMA60; MD) in Type 1 diabetic patients. METHODS: Seven male Type diabetic patients were investigated over a period of 26 h simulating real-life meal glucose excursions. Catheters of the three systems were inserted into subcutaneous adipose tissue of the abdominal region. For MD, interstitial fluid was sampled at 30- to 60-min intervals for offline glucose determination. Reference samples were taken at 15- to 60-min intervals. All three systems were prospectively calibrated to reference. Median differences, median absolute relative differences (MARD), median absolute differences (MAD), Bland-Altman plot and Clark Error Grid were used to determine accuracy. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean glucose difference (2 standard deviations) between reference and interstitial glucose of -10.5 (41.8) % for GRT, 20.2 (55.9) % for GDS and 6.5 (35.2) % for MD, respectively. Overall MAD (interquartile range) was 1.07 (0.39; 2.04) mmol/l for GRT, 1.59 (0.54; 3.08) mmol/l for GDS and 0.76 (0.26; 1.58) mmol/l for MD. Overall MARD was 15.0 (5.6; 23.4) % (GRT), 19.7 (6.1; 37.6) % (GDS) and 8.7 (4.1; 18.3) % (MD), respectively. Total sensor failure occurred in two subjects using GRT and one subject using GDS. CONCLUSIONS: The three investigated technologies had comparable performance. Whereas GRT underestimated actual blood glucose, GDS and MD overestimated blood glucose. Considerable deviations during daily life meal glucose excursions from reference glucose were observed for all three investigated technologies. Present technologies may require further improvement until individual data can lead to direct and automated generation of therapeutic advice in diabetes management.

First application of a transcutaneous optical single-port glucose monitoring device in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

The combination of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion can be used to improve the treatment of patients with diabetes. The aim of this study was to advance an existing preclinical single-port system for clinical application by integrating the sensors of a phosphorescence based CGM system into a standard insulin infusion set. The extracorporeal optical phase fluorimeter was miniaturised and is now comparable with commercial CGM systems regarding size, weight and wear comfort. Sensor chemistry was adapted to improve the adhesion of the sensor elements on the insulin infusion set. In-vitro tests showed a linear correlation of R2=0.998 between sensor values and reference glucose values in the range of 0-300mg/dl. Electrical and cytotoxicity tests showed no negative impact on human health. Two single-port devices were tested in each of 12 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a clinical set-up for 12h. Without additional data processing, the overall median absolute relative difference (median ARD) was 22.5%. For some of the used devices the median ARD was even well below 10%. The present results show that individual glucose sensors performance of the single-port system is comparable with commercial CGM systems but further improvements are needed. The new system offers a high extent of safety and usability by combining insulin infusion and continuous glucose measurement in a single-port system which could become a central element in an artificial pancreas for an improved treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

A toolbox to improve algorithms for insulin-dosing decision support.

BACKGROUND: Standardized insulin order sets for subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin therapy are recommended by clinical guidelines for the inpatient management of diabetes. The algorithm based GlucoTab system electronically assists health care personnel by supporting clinical workflow and providing insulin-dose suggestions. OBJECTIVE: To develop a toolbox for improving clinical decision-support algorithms. METHODS: The toolbox has three main components. 1) Data preparation: Data from several heterogeneous sources is extracted, cleaned and stored in a uniform data format. 2) Simulation: The effects of algorithm modifications are estimated by simulating treatment workflows based on real data from clinical trials. 3) ANALYSIS: Algorithm performance is measured, analyzed and simulated by using data from three clinical trials with a total of 166 patients. RESULTS: Use of the toolbox led to algorithm improvements as well as the detection of potential individualized subgroup-specific algorithms. CONCLUSION: These results are a first step towards individualized algorithm modifications for specific patient subgroups.

Ultra-long pharmacokinetic properties of insulin degludec are comparable in elderly subjects and younger adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Management of diabetes in elderly subjects is complex and careful management of glucose levels is of particular importance in this population because of an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and hypoglycaemia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes compared with younger adults. METHODS: This trial was a randomised, double-blind, two-period, crossover trial conducted in a single centre and included both inpatient and outpatient periods. Subjects were men and women aged 18-35 years inclusive (younger adult group) or ≥65 years (elderly group) with type 1 diabetes who received IDeg (0.4 U/kg) via subcutaneous injection in the thigh once-daily for six days. Following 6-day dosing, a 26-hour euglycaemic glucose clamp procedure was conducted to evaluate the steady-state pharmacodynamic effects of IDeg. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis up to 120 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included the total exposure of IDeg, ie the area under the IDeg serum concentration curve during one dosing interval at steady state (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) (τ = 0-24 h, equal to one dosing interval) and the maximum IDeg serum concentration at steady state (C(max,IDeg,SS)). Pharmacodynamic endpoints included the total glucose-lowering effect of IDeg, ie the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve at steady state (AUC(GIR,τ,SS)), and the maximum GIR at steady state (GIR(max,IDeg,SS)). RESULTS: Total exposure (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) and maximum concentration (C(max,IDeg,SS)) of IDeg were comparable between elderly subjects and younger adults. Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) and C(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.04 (95 % CI 0.73-1.47) and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.74-1.39), respectively. Mean AUC(IDeg,0-12h,SS)/AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) was 53 % in both younger adult and elderly subjects, showing that in both age groups IDeg exposure was evenly distributed across the first and second 12 h of the 24-hour dosing interval. No statistically significant differences were observed between younger adult and elderly subjects with regard to AUC(GIR,τ,SS) (the primary endpoint of this study) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS). Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(GIR,τ,SS) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % CIs were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.47-1.31) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.54-1.17), respectively. Duration of action was beyond the clamp duration of 26 h in all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The exposure of IDeg at steady state during once-daily dosing was similar in younger adult and elderly subjects. The glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was numerically lower in elderly subjects compared with younger adults, but no significant differences were observed between age groups. The ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg observed in younger adults were preserved in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trials.gov number: NCT00964418.

A novel automated discontinuous venous blood monitoring system for ex vivo glucose determination in humans.

Intensive insulin therapy reduces mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients but imposes great demands on medical staff who must take frequent blood samples for the determination of glucose levels. A solution to this resourcing problem would be provided by an automated blood monitoring system. The aim of the present clinical study was to evaluate such a system comprising an automatic blood sampling unit linked to a glucose biosensor. Our approach was to determine the correlation and system error of the sampling unit alone and of the combined system with respect to reference levels over 12h in humans. Two venous cannulae were inserted to connect the automatic and reference systems to the subjects. Blood samples were taken at 15 and 30 min intervals. The median Pearson coefficient of correlation between manually and automatically withdrawn blood samples was 0.982 for the sampling unit alone and 0.950 for the complete system. The biosensor had a linear range up to 20 mmoll(-1) and a 95% response time of <2 min. Clark Error Grid analysis showed that 96.93% of the data (228 data pairs) was in zone A and 3.07% in zone B. Insulin Titration Error Grid analysis suggested an acceptable treatment in 99.56% of cases. Implementation of a "Keep Vein Open" saline infusion into the automated blood sampling system reduced blood withdrawal failures through occluded catheters fourfold. In summary, automated blood sampling from a peripheral vein coupled with automatic glucose determination is a promising alternative to frequent manual blood sampling.